Tired of Multipowers/EC

[CPaladino]

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that Multipower and Elemental control are over-used.

I guess I don't mind multipower as much if it's a utility belt, power armor, or something that can do multiple things (a gun w/ grenade launcher and bullets), but both Sapphire an Witchcraft have one.

I REALLY don't like Elemental controls... In my personal opionion just because your guy has related (maybe elemental) powers, he shouldn't get a point break.

Why shoudl I allow a point break for the Human Torch but not the Punisher or Spiderman? Someone with a solid character concept that doesn't use say, Fire powers, is getting penalized even though his concept is solid, where a Fire-Guy gets bonus points and he probably did less concept work!

I guess it's just a pet peeve to see everyone with "EC: Demon Powers", or all kinds of multipowers.

I may be in the minority here, but multipowers should be for devices/equipment more than supers (yes there are some exceptions), and EC should be removed entirely.

Am I in the minority?

[Hermit]

Originally posted by CPaladino


Why shoudl I allow a point break for the Human Torch but not the Punisher or Spiderman? Someone with a solid character concept that doesn't use say, Fire powers, is getting penalized even though his concept is solid, where a Fire-Guy gets bonus points and he probably did less concept work!


Well, I would give Spider Man an EC of "Spider Powers" because it is fairly tight, though some of his powers might not fit the 5th Ed rules (Has to cost END etc) and that has to be taken into account. But that's me.

[CPaladino]

*LOL* I *KNEW* someone would say that. I shouldn't have put Spidey up there. How about uh... Captain America, or Dare Devil.

I think you guys know what I am getting at though.

[Just A Guy Name]

I agree in principle, although ECs do not bother as much as Multipowers. The latter often seem to be taken just to get a point break on a bunch of powers that the character would probably use only one-at-a-time anyway. As GM, I have turned down a few multipowers that I thought were just frivolous. The only ones I (usually) like are those built through a focus. ECs are abusable also, but I have an easier time wrapping my head around a sound concept utilizing one, plus the definition of the particular EC clues opponents in on it's SE, giving them the potential to counter all the related powers.

[Hermit]

I see it Cpaladino, but I think the case for ECs is sound. I mean, some GMs LIKE concepts that seem tighter. And ECs can at least encourage PCs to make a concept that makes sense.

If some guy goes...
"I want an AP HKA... and uhmm FLIGHT, yeah... and Desolid... and... Stretching..." Just because he thinks it will make his character a combat monster.. I'm not too impressed. He doesn't want to play a person, he wants to play a mechanical monster of 'neat stuff', that's fine, he can.

However, the person who comes up and says "I would like to play an insect sort of powered fellow.. I thought Flight, Summon (Insect Swarms), An EB for his 'Sting', and Shrinking seemed to fit...' He gets the EC, and I feel a Player has a concept that goes beyond 'powerz kewl' :)

No offense intended, I'm not saying anyone who enjoys whacky power mixes IS like that automatically.. it's just my preference that they be tighter

Now, Martial Arts and such , well, those Damage Classes can be pretty handy even outside an EC, so I've never felt they were really hurt by the loss.

[CPaladino]

I like the focus for the multipower... That better describes my "device/equipment".

Well, I guess if it's not just me, maybe we can let Steve know.

I mentioned it to him at Origins last year that in the old champs. books of heros/villains, everyone and their brother had either an EC or a Multipower (or both), just for the sake of having it.

-Chris

[Hermit]

Well, one thing I have noticed among my players is that with the switch to 350 pts for 'standard' super heroes, they seem less pressured to find ANY excuse for a Frame work :)

[Just A Guy Name]

Originally posted by Hermit
<snip>No offense intended, I'm not saying anyone who enjoys whacky power mixes IS like that automatically.. it's just my preference that they be tighter.

Aw heck, I'll say it. They're whack!
There. Now it's out in the open. At least the air is clear:)

[Karma]

There's also the fact that ECs and Multipowers come with their own inherant drawback in that when someone comes along with 'Supress Fire powers (Fire extingusiher)' they loose all their nifty powers at once. Kinda makes the point break more of a Limitation 'All powers in this framework effected equally' which someone without the 'point break' framework wouldn't get.

So another way of looking at it apart from 'Points for tight concept' (which there's nothing wrong with) is 'points for the disadvantage of putting all your eggs in one basket' and making it easier for your enemies to find a way to neutralise you.

[dbsousa]

EC's and Multipowers are more limiting in FRED. The drain issue has already been mentioned here. But with the "clarification" on Multiple Attacks, Multipower limits your raw firepower.

In 4e, there was no reason not to put all your attacks in one Multipower with ultra slots. You could never use two at the same time. Now placing your attacks outside a multipower allows you to use them simultaneously.

[JmOz]

I have said this before, but will repeat it today

The reason for MP/EC is to give a bonus to the various Blasters and mentalist types (Wizards, Gadgeteers, etc...)

Bricks get the same bonus in the form of kickbacks from high stats

MA get it from a combination of kickbacks from high stats (CHALLANGE ME on the versitility of DEX), effectiveness of MA, and the ability to use the 3 point skill levels

[i3ullseye]

I have rarely had problems with either.

And yes, Capt. America would be an EC - Super Soldier.

Daredevil wouldn't be, because he really only has one power, spacial awareness. The rest are all skill based. So he is a bad example.

But like any disavantage or limitation, it is not only your right, but your DUTY to abuse the hell out of this and make your players suffer. There certainly should be times they regret building their powers that way, or your not doing everything you can to keep the game 'interesting' for them. :)

[JohnTaber]

In my mind Karma said the salient point. MP and EC are restrictive in their own right. In my mind, that is why the point break is given. It is not given simply because someone figures out how to make all their powers fit under a given special effect.

Just my $0.02...

[Tamashii2000]

Originally posted by CPaladino
*LOL* I *KNEW* someone would say that. I shouldn't have put Spidey up there. How about uh... Captain America, or Dare Devil.

I think you guys know what I am getting at though.

EC: Patriotic Powers and EC: Blind Guy with Senses Powers....


Just Kidding....:D :D :D

[CPaladino]

Yeah I'm not a big "drain" user as a GM. I also go by the mentality that I rarely need EC since I'm making a villain, and I can just make them how I want and not have to point-pinch.

[DeadlyBulb]

One of the main reasons I believe the Hero Systems includes framworks is because you can only buy powers that each acheive a single result. If you want "Flame Powers" you can't just buy a standard power and then pick from a list of neat things that your powers can do, you have to purchase each facet. This is both a weakness and an advantage of the Hero System. You can get very detailed in exactly what each of your powers can accomplish, but you must buy each individual piece. EB, RKA, Entangle, Change Environment, Force Wall...

In some other systems if you wanted "ICE" powers you just buy or choose "ICE POWERS" and you can automatically do those things. The downside is anyone who chose the same set of powers is your clone. Some systems have added the ability to take power stunts or require a player to choose which options he wants. This gives simplicity while also allowing some degree of differentiation between paranormals with similar concepts.

I will always be a fan of the hero system, but I have recently gotten a little tired of all the point-finessing, etc just to get to the real enjoyment which is the playing of the game. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant and I suppose the hours of time spent writing up a characters abilities rather than his origin is getting old.

[Killer Shrike]

I think you are missing the point, but if you dont like them then dont use them.

All of the Power Frameworks are integral to the system and designed to be used to assist in the expressing of a character concept. There are many character concepts that are not possible at all without using Frameworks.

The purpose of a point based system is not to limit character design, but instead to allow freeform character design; the idea is that when the character is finished the point total gives an indication of relative power for comparitive use so that theoretically 1 PC is about as good as the next PC at the same point level.

HEROs without Frameworks is like a programming language without arrays, polymorphism, or late binding. You can still do a few small things, but a great deal of the flexibility and power of the system is lost, and you have to do ugly & inefficient hacks to get around some design concepts.


Elemental Control is not 'free points'. Its essentially a polymorphic construct. Its a design incentive to encourage players to tightly restrict thier Special Effect and accept that in certain circumstances they will be seriously affected by an attack that will not seriously disadvantage other characters that lack an EC. In essence an Elemental Control represents 1 big flexible power, which Ill call a meta-power for clarity, which has many different applications. Thus a character with 'Magnetic Control' who is able to do several things like fly, generate a force field, manipulate objects at range, etc all at the same time is a good candidate for an EC because they have 1 meta-power with several 'power stunts' stemming from that meta-power. If a character can be said to do a list of things because of 'X' where 'X' is some central source of powers, then they have a valid EC.

Multipowers are basically arrays of powers which draw from a common pool of points. They are most useful for exclusionary option sets and enable flexibility at the cost of robustness. The benefit of a MPP is matched by the fact the lack of solidity essentially.

The reason why so many characters take these frameworks is because they are an intrinsic part of the system and essential to the design of many character concepts. However, if you personally do not like them then you dont have to use them in your game. Its similar to tying one arm behind your back when designing characters, but you have that right as the GM. Personally, I would not play in a supers game where Frameworks are not allowed anymore than I would write an application in PASCAL. I think that a GM who bans them does not understand the full potential of the HERO System as a design ENABLER rather than a design RESTRICTER.

All of the non-point based games basically restrict character design: they say this is what you can play, this is what you can do, and this is what you can develop into with experience. Your option set is predefined. Full blown point systems like HEROs say: heres a bunch of raw materials, mould them into what you want and your only restriction is the general power level that the GM wants to run the game at. Everything in the game says, do what you want and the GM can veto anything he doesnt want in his game rather than the game designers doing that arbitrarily in the rules of the game itself. Every restriction says 'dont do this, unless your GM says you can'. It is a very permissive system, focusing on making cool characters with neat abilities. By blanket banning Frameworks, rather than just spot checking/vetoing abuses of such, a GM severely goes against this mindset.

IMO, YMMV etc

[CPaladino]

I'm not sure I agree w/ you on all those points Shrike.

By removing EC, you can still do everything that you stated, the only difference is that you have to pay a little more for the same powers.

I do see your point about the way that "Ice Powers" in others games has a list of static effects (or maybe a variable set of power stunts or whatever), but if Ice-Boy can shoot an EB (Ice blast), have extra running (ice slides), and some armor (ice skin) and takes it all through a EC, and Fire-Girl takes similar stuff but w/o an EC, they really are about the same power strength except that Iceboy saves some points.

I guess it's just a matter of taste, but I am all for keeping Multipowers, and yanking EC entirely. It helps those who take powers like ice, fire, someone earlier said super soldier (I would never allow that one personaly).

In the case of Spiderman, I guess he could get away with some Dex, Strength, Clinging, Danger Sense maybe, all in the EC, but I wouldn't let him take his swinging or entangle through an EC since it's not an inherent power of him, but it's a device (which he's already getting a point break on since it's through a focus).

[i3ullseye]

so then take a linked disadvantage on each... or maybe a limitation linking their effects in case of drains. but then you end up with the same point savings, just more math. so EC really just makes it a shortcut. you can get to the exact same result without ever calling it an EC, but there is then way more work involved.

[Just A Guy Name]

I think you will find that it really is not saving much work at all. I take a character, give him a bunch of powers that share a theme in common, give the bunch of them a disadvantage which I will call "Linked special effects with these other powers" so that they are all vulnerable to Suppress, Drain, or whatever. Voila, there's your EC. Like I said last night, I do not have much of a problem with EC myself. I have found multipowers to be more prone to abuse.

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by JmOz
I have said this before, but will repeat it today

The reason for MP/EC is to give a bonus to the various Blasters and mentalist types (Wizards, Gadgeteers, etc...)

Bricks get the same bonus in the form of kickbacks from high stats

MA get it from a combination of kickbacks from high stats (CHALLANGE ME on the versitility of DEX), effectiveness of MA, and the ability to use the 3 point skill levels

I totally agree with this. In one campaign I'm in characters are made with 300 points and I'm the only EP'er. I'm running around with 20/20 DEF (that's total, Force Field and all) and 50 Active Points in attack powers. One of the bricks has a 20d6 attack and like 35/35 Def (or higher I don't remember). Now granted I have a lot more points invested in skills (I'm also the team scientist) but I can't imagine how weak I'd be without my MP <b>and</b> my EC

[CrosshairCollie]

I rather like Elemental Controls, especially now that they do have that combined weakness problem (one Drain/Suppress/etc ruins your whole day) ... and I have no issues with the point-savings. The EC + MP combo is the traditional Energy Projector in every game I've ever been in. And for the most part, barring sweeping limitations (like the OIF armor guy or the 'only in sunlight' kinda deals), a brick-type and a blaster-type will be fairly well balanced. Like someone said, the Bricks get kickbacks in terms of REC and STUN that they get 'free' (not to open the whole 'STR is too cheap' can of worms).

Besides, I've seen a pretty large number of 'Conglomeration Man' builds where I wish they *had* a concept, much less a tight one.

P.S. Maybe not EC: Super Soldier, but EC: Enhanced Physique might go ... though I'd probably never permit statistics in an EC, which is what'd mostly be there. Sorry, Cap, gotta buy your stats the hard way. Now, EC: Shield ... THAT we can do! :)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie
Maybe not EC: Super Soldier, but EC: Enhanced Physique might go ... though I'd probably never permit statistics in an EC, which is what'd mostly be there. Sorry, Cap, gotta buy your stats the hard way. Now, EC: Shield ... THAT we can do! :)

My primary character, Zl'f, is built with an EC: Enhanced Reflexes that includes DEX, SPD and Running. My co-GMs thought it was fine, and felt it was enough of a Limitation since anyone doing either a SPD Drain or a DEX Drain on her would drain the other as well. (In fact, since her MP is also Linked to her EC it can get really ugly). She has never been unbalanced in our game; in fact she spends more time unconscious than the rest of the team combined. Heightened reflexes do not translate into high defenses; at least not in my mind. So she has a 12 PD/ED and an 18 CON.

Just for the heck of it I designed a "cross-linked" version without the EC, such as i3ullseye suggested above, of her using Hero Designer a couple of months ago. The cost differential was 1 point out of a 364 point character (The EC version actually cost more). Hardly a powerful indictment of the overefficiency and unbalancing nature of Elemental Controls. :p

[Gary]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
My primary character, Zl'f, is built with an EC: Enhanced Reflexes that includes DEX, SPD and Running. My co-GMs thought it was fine, and felt it was enough of a Limitation since anyone doing either a SPD Drain or a DEX Drain on her would drain the other as well. (In fact, since her MP is also Linked to her EC it can get really ugly). She has never been unbalanced in our game; in fact she spends more time unconscious than the rest of the team combined. Heightened reflexes do not translate into high defenses; at least not in my mind. So she has a 12 PD/ED and an 18 CON.

Just for the heck of it I designed a "cross-linked" version without the EC, such as i3ullseye suggested above, of her using Hero Designer a couple of months ago. The cost differential was 1 point out of a 364 point character (The EC version actually cost more). Hardly a powerful indictment of the overefficiency and unbalancing nature of Elemental Controls. :p

What limitation did you give for the cross-link? At -1/4, I doubt that the point differential was only 1 point. Greater than -1/4 is too much of a limitation.

I would never allow dex and spd in a EC personally.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by JmOz
I have said this before, but will repeat it today

The reason for MP/EC is to give a bonus to the various Blasters and mentalist types (Wizards, Gadgeteers, etc...)

Bricks get the same bonus in the form of kickbacks from high stats

MA get it from a combination of kickbacks from high stats (CHALLANGE ME on the versitility of DEX), effectiveness of MA, and the ability to use the 3 point skill levels

I killed the brick advantage by requiring all characters to take NCM (for points) and then outlawed the EC altogether, becuase I loathe them, consider them massively abusive, and unfair in that they benefit certain character types more than others.

Most players will pay double to go over on Con, or a Few points of Dex, but its really balanced my game considerably - I get more reasonably character conceptions.

I understand the theory that ECs make up for the bricks point advantage (not that I think thats why their in the system, but lets go with that), but I'd prefer players used multipowers. An EC becomes progressively more abusive with the addition of extra slots. A thirty point multipower with six slots has saves 180 points. I don't know of too many bricks who got THAT much of a kickback on their figured characterisitics!

If I wanted characters to start with 530 points (such as the character who has six slots in an EC) I would have given ALL the characters that many points. The EC is majorly broken, despite its "internal controls", which hardly make up for the cost break. With an MP I can only use a maximum number of AP as are in the reserve, regardless of how many slots I have, and the points saved on the reserve via limitations are actually paid for with the limitations, wheras the EC is designed to give a point break without making up for it by limiting its effectiveness.

I have no issues with multipowers and VPP

[CrosshairCollie]

D-Man:

Points don't always tell the tale. Having been playing Champions since the halcyon days of Champs III, I can tell you that. I've seen a 250 point character that could floor Dr. Destroyer in 1 round. I've a critical eye for twinky characters, and the presence or absence of frameworks and point-savings doesn't make something 'broken'. I've never seen a character who became obscenely effective or points-efficient for having a huge EC. I usually think of them as being pretty wasteful.

Why is it you don't have problems with MPs when you hate ECs? From your argument, MPs save *more* points.

At any rate, what I guess I'm saying is, don't sweat the points, theoretical or practical. When you're determining a character's suitability for a campaign, the end result is the important part. Whether you get a 30d6 attack from a super-pushed Haymaker or a massive Energy Blast in an EC is irrelevant ... it's still too much.

Then again, I'm a bookmonger. I'm more inclined to go along with the book than my gut feelings, figuring that, hey, people spent months and years playtesting this ... I shouldn't lightly alter their decision without knowing how they got there.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie
D-Man:

Points don't always tell the tale. Having been playing Champions since the halcyon days of Champs III, I can tell you that. I've seen a 250 point character that could floor Dr. Destroyer in 1 round. I've a critical eye for twinky characters, and the presence or absence of frameworks and point-savings doesn't make something 'broken'. I've never seen a character who became obscenely effective or points-efficient for having a huge EC. I usually think of them as being pretty wasteful.

Why is it you don't have problems with MPs when you hate ECs? From your argument, MPs save *more* points.

At any rate, what I guess I'm saying is, don't sweat the points, theoretical or practical. When you're determining a character's suitability for a campaign, the end result is the important part. Whether you get a 30d6 attack from a super-pushed Haymaker or a massive Energy Blast in an EC is irrelevant ... it's still too much.

Then again, I'm a bookmonger. I'm more inclined to go along with the book than my gut feelings, figuring that, hey, people spent months and years playtesting this ... I shouldn't lightly alter their decision without knowing how they got there.

I've been playing since Champs III, too. I consider the EC a legacy thing. "We can't take it out because too many fans will be pissed".

I have a nose for cheese, too. I see far more of it with EC's than I do with other constructs. I also don't like "free points".

Here's a hypothetical: I as a GM decide I'm running a 200+150 game. I picked that number because I had a certain power range I was expecting. I also handed my players a sheet of construction guidelines, because total points isn't the only measure.

The character who has an MP has two very real restrictions:

1. he can't exceed the maximum number of active points in the MP, so the number of powers he can activate is generally limited to one or two. In my experience, its usually 1. The character is relatively limited by this. The reason slots are cheap is that you can't use them all at one time - if you could you'd lose the savings in paying for the reserve. It would just be a VPP, with the slots counting as the control cost.

2. any points he gets from limitations are guinuine. They suffer for them.

3. my experience as a gamemaster is that the MPs inherent drawback - 1-2 powers at a time, and the fact that they are generally used to simulate "many EB SFX" or "untility belts" instead of "all my powers" in superheroic games, means they aren't abused as much.

Its not a "feeling". Its my experience.

The character with the EC has one restriction - a common drain, which is only worth about 1/4 as a limitation. The inherent limitations of the EC do NOT make up for the point savings the way an MPs inherent limitations do. Its just a 50% price break without any real drawbacks.

They're freebie points based on "conception", which means they unfairly benefit character types that lend themselves to narrowness. In addition, total points, when characters fit the game masters other design requirements, DO matter. The character with the EC is more effective than anyone else on the team. He got more powers for less.

The guy with the MP can only USE 350 points at one time, even if his slots would total out to be more than that, but the guy with the six slot EC I mentioned above can USE 530 points at one time - which is 180 points more than I wanted for the game I was running.

The EC - in my games - is dead.

[i3ullseye]

Well, the base cost of an EC woudl suggest a -1 limitation. Since points paid in initial (say 30 pts) are basically doubled for the sub powers.... 15 pts gets you 30. Now -1 certainly is alot, but this ignored the base power itself.

So lets assume a 30 pt base... and 3 powers added. Becuase adding only one power to the EC is kinda pointless, you really need 2 to get the real effect.

Base 30 +15 power 1 +15 power 2 +15 power 3 = 75 Pts for 120 Pts active.

Everything being in even quarters, this is indeed around -1/4 give or take. Lets do the same with JUST the -1/4 lim...

30 (-1/4) = 22 per power... or 88 total. Not much difference.

BUT>.... doing it this way, any power can have any power level and still apply the same -1/4 limitation. It need not be in increments of the pase power, nor does the point savings stop if you exceed the basic power. If one power is 50 active instead of 30, the entire 50 can have the -1/4 savings, not just the first 30. And any 15 point power can be dropped in and STILL recieve that -1/4 savings.

In the end, EC is actually more restrictive than this purchase wise, easier to calculate... and once it is all said and done, will cost about the same.

[Trebuchet]

The very fact that so many characters are built without Elemental Controls is pretty good evidence in my mind that ECs are not inherently over-efficient. If they were abusive or unbalanced every character would have one; it's not hard to rationalize a theme. {"Ninja abilities? Powered Armor? Sure, go ahead.")

Any character construction can be abusive. As Crosshair Collie pointed out, it is quite possible to build a 250 point character that can deck Dr. D in a couple of shots and still be "legal" by the rules. I prefer to examine the overall concept. I think ECs are a reward for a tight concept. Of course they can be abused, but so can anything else in an open ended game. It's up to the GM to say yes or no.

[Blue]

It was a hard decision in my campaign to rule that Multipowers are forbidden, but it was on the advice of players who warned me that there were a few real bonified number crunchers who would ovewhelm the rest of the party.

ECs I'm allowing, and I'm pretty loose on what is an acceptable grouping.

But there are times when I wish they hadn't been invented. It would be a cleaner game without power frameworks.

[CPaladino]

I guess I'm just responding to Trebuchet's:
----
"The very fact that so many characters are built without Elemental Controls is pretty good evidence in my mind that ECs are not inherently over-efficient. If they were abusive or unbalanced every character would have one; it's not hard to rationalize a theme. {"Ninja abilities? Powered Armor? Sure, go ahead.")"
----
Not true. Trying to remember characters from the through the old Champs. books brings back memories of 20/20 Armor Spandex Suit; Disadvantage: Mesmerizingly Beautiful (when the character has a 10 Comeliness); Everything built w/ EC and Multipowers; and all sorts of rules raping.

-Chris

[Enforcer84]

If you set limits on active points, then all the EC's and MP's allow you to do is have more abilities that you can use together (or not in MP with Ultra slots). Why is that such a bad thing? I don't think that any of the power frameworks are abusive if you enforce the existing rules of FRED and of your campaign.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by CPaladino
Trying to remember characters from the through the old Champs. books brings back memories of 20/20 Armor Spandex Suit; Disadvantage: Mesmerizingly Beautiful (when the character has a 10 Comeliness); Everything built w/ EC and Multipowers; and all sorts of rules raping.

Rules raping is a flaw of the players and GM, not the rules themselves. Without MPs and ECs, there are many common concepts that would be difficult or impossible to create. I'm not going to force the rules to be rewritten because I'm an inadequate GM and can't bring myself to tell a player "No." It's the GM's responsibility to enforce the genre, not the game system's. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Any GM is free to forbid anything in his campaign he so chooses. I just can't see any reason to prefer forbidding Power Frameworks outright instead of simply treating them on a case by case basis. I happen to like Power Frameworks; I think they add a useful element to the game. YMMV.

[Mutant for Hire]

Right now it seems that the most efficient way to build a (non-brick) character is:

1. Multipower/VPP for the main active power attack.
2. EC for the defensive, movement and other passive personal powers that don't require targetting and often run in parallel.

Am I mistaken?

[Just A Guy Name]

I do not think anyone has advocated rewriting the rules. Certainly that would be a huge inconvenience for those that like EC and MP frameworks, as they would be forced to change the rules for their own games to suit themselves :) Perhaps we can sum up by saying: 1.Use your best judgement as a GM in evaluating each character concept. 2.If you do not want EC and/or MP frameworks, just disallow them, but consider that some concepts will be harder to build w/o them.

[DrSavant]

Actually I've seen players want both an EC and a MULTIPOWER, (and a few who also wanted VPP too)
How I do it is this;
I put a slot limit on EC and MULTIPOWER to avoid abuse of the system (the limit is 6 powers) I also require that the powers be related in some well defined way.
Fire, Ice,etc seem fine but something like "Known Spells" seems like a munchkinization.

[rjcurrie]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire
Right now it seems that the most efficient way to build a (non-brick) character is:

1. Multipower/VPP for the main active power attack.
2. EC for the defensive, movement and other passive personal powers that don't require targetting and often run in parallel.

Am I mistaken?

That design strategy has certianly been popular with most of the players I have played with. But from what I have gathered from people on these boards, it would seem to be more of the exception rather than the rule.

To be honest, I can't see building anything but the most primitive and simplistic designs without frameworks. Certainly, such a character would be lacking in flexibility, especially if you want a significant number of skills, perks, and talents as well as talents.

Of course, I am used to playing in a group where virtually everyone has GMed Hero at one point or another and most of us are pretty good at building efficient characters. Often, the one or two people who are not as good at optimizing characters have one of us who are good at it take a look at their designs and help make them more efficient.

Rod

[Fry Daddy]

JmOZ said:

I have said this before, but will repeat it today

The reason for MP/EC is to give a bonus to the various Blasters and mentalist types (Wizards, Gadgeteers, etc...)

Bricks get the same bonus in the form of kickbacks from high stats

MA get it from a combination of kickbacks from high stats (CHALLANGE ME on the versitility of DEX), effectiveness of MA, and the ability to use the 3 point skill levels

I have to agree.

[Tech]

Depending on the player, an EC or MP can be used well or used poorly. I agree that having both of them and the reasoning for them is sound. However, if a GM doesn't like them, don't use them.

Regarding concepts, not every single character has to have a 'tight concept'. So what if someone wants an EB, Flight, Desolid, Tunneling, Ego Attack, etc, ad nauseum? If your character concept allows it, the character will probably be allowed to have them; just don't expect any breaks on the cost with an EC or MP. The game is for the players to have fun - yes, the GM, too. :) If someone wants a weird or wacky concept and doesn't cause problems for the campaign, GM or players, go ahead and let them! It's for fun.